Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[triforcharity]

Nah, have at it. I got my good one in for the month.

Merry Christmas!

 

[bardamu]

Pure nonsense. The whole point of the model is to demonstrate the amount of momentum involved. The amount of energy imparted is sufficient to break core columns. Perimeter columns are weaker.

Reasonable people cannot fail to understand this. You are obviously unreasonable. You fail to accept that weaker cases are destroyed when energy suffices to destroy stronger cases. That is your failing, not Ryan's or anyone elses.

For a column to be destroyed by fuel, it has to be hit by some fuel.

Still haven't read the report, have you? If you did, you wouldn't have said this. Hint: Look for the section of chapter 10 where they describe the various differing fuel loadings.

In chapter 10, points are plotted on the pressure-impulse graph corresponding to 4 positions along the length of the wing, each representing a different volume of fuel based on a full tank. Two of the positions are outboard of baffle rib 18. In chapter 5 NIST tell us there was no fuel outboard of baffle rib 18, which means the points from two of these positions are academic.

I'm misrepresenting the presentation to illustrate what is specifically, explicitly, unambiguously stated about it? All people have to do is look at my post, post 1174, and see the explicit statements. "Simplified analysis of core damage"... "Demonstrates that, at this speed, fuel alone can plausibly fail core columns"... it doesn't get any clearer, Bard.

If that's all the author of the presentation was claiming for the model, you might have an argument. The problems arise when he leaps from "fuel alone can plausibly fail core columns" to "the model predicts that the plane must slice through the building" (paraphrase).

Which is why Ryan presents a mathematical model. Duh. When you know the characteristics of an object, you can create models based on those characteristics. That was the whole point of his demonstration: To illustrate simplified modeling. You missed this point by such a large margin that no one reading your posts can fail to see that your only objective is to misrepresent Ryan's presentation.


The wings add mass and are the carrier of the fuel. But again, Ryan's point is about the amount of momentum available, regardless of how it is carried, and that it's sufficient to destroy the strongest elements: The core columns. He's explicitly, unambiguously stated this. His data is taken from a report that states this. His math uses values based the core columns and the calculated momentum. The only reason you're making the arguments you do is because you cannot challenge the math. You cannot show that the fuel has insufficient momentum to create damage. You haven't even tried. You haven't read the original data, you haven't tried to comprehend the point of his presentation, and you've drawn up a nonsensical argument to give the appearance of debate. There is none here. You've not presented a case that negates Ryan's.

Until you can take his math and show an error, or unless you can show that the properties of the columns that NIST provided and Ryan used are incorrect, then you have no argument. None. Zero. If you want to salvage anything from your point, then either show a math error on Ryan's part, or show that the columns properties were different. Anything else is blowing hot air, and you've done enough of that.

Don't bother replying to this unless you can show math errors or show that the properties are other than what NIST said. There's nothing else to argue, and you've been corrected enough times already. Unless you post something pertinent to either of those, you will not get any further responses. The most I'll do is bump old posts if I feel like it.

You could present a mathematical model to show that an anvil travelling at 500mph would smash right through a perimeter column. The maths might be impeccable, but if perimeter columns weren't hit by an anvil, the exercise would be pretty useless.

 

[funk de fino]

You could present a mathematical model to show that an anvil travelling at 500mph would smash right through a perimeter column. The maths might be impeccable, but if perimeter columns weren't hit by an anvil, the exercise would be pretty useless.

I just wanted to seperate this golden nugget out on its own. It deserves it.

Never has "wood for the trees" been more apt.

I knew they should not have started up that hadron collider thingy...........

 

[GlennB]

You could present a mathematical model to show that an anvil travelling at 500mph would smash right through a perimeter column. The maths might be impeccable, but if perimeter columns weren't hit by an anvil, the exercise would be pretty useless.

doctor: Mr bardamu, I'm sorry but your left thumb will turn to cheddar cheese in a few months. It's a little known disease.

bard : Sorry? You're sorry? So it's your fault then?

doc: Er, no, I was expressing regret and sympathy at your condition.

bard: But you said 'sorry', so you're admitting fault, right?

doc: No, Mr bardamu, the word 'sorry' there is not an admission of fault in any way, it's ...

bard: Haha! It was your fault! You said sorry!!!

doc: Er,

bard: Ner ner di ner ner!

<continue fruitless discussion ad infinitum>

bardamu - your idiocy is impenetrable by fact, reason and logic. But, Happy Christmas.

 

[HyJinX]

You could present a mathematical model to show that an anvil travelling at 500mph would smash right through a perimeter column. The maths might be impeccable, but if perimeter columns weren't hit by an anvil, the exercise would be pretty useless.

Again, why do you take such great pride in displaying such stupidity??????? Seriously. I'm not trying to attack you, but for the love of Pete, have some self-respect.

 

[twinstead]

Again, why do you take such great pride in displaying such stupidity??????? Seriously. I'm not trying to attack you, but for the love of Pete, have some self-respect.

That's all I'm saying too. Bard doesn't appear to be stupid or anything like that, it's just that he's arguing on autopilot. There's no dishonor in saying one isn't qualified to debate something.

 

[bardamu]

What is there to say that the perimeter columns were not tampered with allowing a real plane to penetrate as we saw ? (Or thought we saw)

Bill, there's a much simpler explanation. The terrorists sneaked 12 anvils onto each plane and attached them to the parts of the wings where they knew the fuel tanks would be empty after a leisurely cruise around the NORAD-free airspace.

 

[DGM]

Bill, there's a much simpler explanation. The terrorists sneaked 12 anvils onto each plane and attached them to the parts of the wings where they knew the fuel tanks would be empty after a leisurely cruise around the NORAD-free airspace.

Giving up because you can't do the math?

It's no sin not to understand something, it is to try to BS your way out.

 

[dafydd]

Did you find any evidence the hijackers boarded the planes?

(Korans and flight manuals left in parked cars don't count as hard evidence)

The evidence speaks for itself,it's not my fault that you are too stupid to understand it.

 

[bardamu]

Again, why do you take such great pride in displaying such stupidity??????? Seriously. I'm not trying to attack you, but for the love of Pete, have some self-respect.

Giving up because you can't do the math?

It's no sin not to understand something, it is to try to BS your way out.

The maths couldn't be simpler. Look at Figure 7.9 in NCSTAR 2-1B and locate the red diamond that marks the column that was hit by the tip of the left wing. Counting the columns inwards towards the fuselage, you'll see that columns 4, 5, 7 and 8 were broken individually. What could have hit these columns to break them cleanly like that?

If R Mackey and R Wieck can state confidently that the plane had to slice through the building, they must know the answer to this question.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The maths couldn't be simpler. Look at Figure 7.9 in NCSTAR 2-1B and locate the red diamond that marks the column that was hit by the tip of the left wing. Counting the columns inwards towards the fuselage, you'll see that columns 4, 5, 7 and 8 were broken individually. What could have hit these columns to break them cleanly like that?

If R Mackey and R Wieck can state confidently that the plane had to slice through the building, they must know the answer to this question.

2 very large commercial passenger jets! What else would hit them, UFO's??

 

[twinstead]

If R Mackey and R Wieck can state confidently that the plane had to slice through the building, they must know the answer to this question.

Dude. ANY rational person can state confidently that the plane HAD to slice through the building, because IT DID, and we have irrefutable evidence that it did. What are you jabbering about?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Fonebone > Fess-up Mikillini , How much thought did you give " this one " ?



-Fonebone < NO problem- You answered my question.

I took your comments as parody, not the least bit serious. Bill and Bardamu would consider it as a serious theory.
See the difference?

 

[MIKILLINI]

For starters, I'd want to know if the flying pig had fuel in its outboard tank.

Only if you take flying pigs as something viable.

 

[MIKILLINI]

The guy said he took a fire extinguisher but what came out was ' a stream of fluid about a quarter of an inch wide '

I''m sure I could go to youtube right now and find much more efficient fire extinguishers, even from 2001. What do you hink ? Was the guy lying in his teeth ?

Sounds like a class A extinguisher. Do you know what that is Bill?

 

[Arus808]

Mikillini - i think you mean Dry Chemical fire Extinguisher since that has the smallest nozzle of the three (Class A is for the type of fire a FE is made to be used for. CLASS A meaning fires with an origin of paper, or wood). a DC FE is mostly a multi class FE but it works best for Class B and C fires (electrical started fires). This is the most common FE that will be found in most businesses and for personal use (home):

Second type is the more dramatic CO2 FE (the one with the wide nozzle)

And no one could mistake a Water FE:

 

[MIKILLINI]

Mikillini - i think you mean Dry Chemical fire Extinguisher since that has the smallest nozzle of the three (Class A is for the type of fire a FE is made to be used for. CLASS A meaning fires with an origin of paper, or wood). a DC FE is mostly a multi class FE but it works best for Class B and C fires (electrical started fires).

The quote Bill referred to had the person describing only a quarter of an inch stream of liquid came from the extinguisher.

This seems to be the description of a water filled extinguisher made for class A fires only.

 

[triforcharity]

It seems to me that he is describing a water type extinguisher. Not many commercial buildings use these types of extinguishers, as they have to be pointed directly at the seat of the fire, and can be cumbersome to use. Unlike a ABC extinguisher, which is the most common, could be used by my retarded dog. Point-Squeeze. Simple. You don't even have to be a good shot. Just get it near it.

Or an extinguisher that has lost most of its charge.

 

[Arus808]

The quote Bill referred to had the person describing only a quarter of an inch stream of liquid came from the extinguisher.

This seems to be the description of a water filled extinguisher made for class A fires only.

that would be interesting to see that the towers would have these instead of the cheaper ABC DC FE's.

And as I understand, most Water FE's are heavy to be just grabbing to use. The one that I've see was actually quite large.

 

[TruthersLie]

So you woukd run into the huge dust cloud and put out fires you can't see?

not more than once.